Amongst the returning characters from the first movie is the dog Beast and, yes, in the first 30 minutes or so Beast has a flashback to the first film when he attacked the character of Pluto (one of the mutants). It's probably the single greatest flashback ever. What could they have done in the remakes? A car having a flashback? A tree? The hills themselves? The possibilities are endless!
Showing posts with label The Hills Have Eyes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hills Have Eyes. Show all posts
June 26, 2007
The Hills Have Flashbacks
I watched The Hills Have Eyes Part II last night. That would be the 1985 sequel to the 1977 original, not the 2007 sequel to the original 2006 remake. Make sense? The movie was sort of blithely entertaining - nothing too great, nothing too terible - but it has one very famous scene and that one scene makes the entire movie worth it.
THE DOG HAS A FLASHBACK!
Amongst the returning characters from the first movie is the dog Beast and, yes, in the first 30 minutes or so Beast has a flashback to the first film when he attacked the character of Pluto (one of the mutants). It's probably the single greatest flashback ever. What could they have done in the remakes? A car having a flashback? A tree? The hills themselves? The possibilities are endless!
Amongst the returning characters from the first movie is the dog Beast and, yes, in the first 30 minutes or so Beast has a flashback to the first film when he attacked the character of Pluto (one of the mutants). It's probably the single greatest flashback ever. What could they have done in the remakes? A car having a flashback? A tree? The hills themselves? The possibilities are endless!
June 11, 2007
7 Possible Reasons for Hostel Part II's Bad Box Office
So, my fear was that Hostel Part II would flourish at the box office this past US weekend and would better the opening week gross of the original ($19mil if I remember correctly). Instead, it didn't even make half of that - coming in with an estimated box office gross of $8.8 million. Naturally I am ecstatic, but then I started thinking of why. And I came up with this completely un-scientific list of seven possible reasons.
1. It's Summer and nobody wants to sit through a woman bathing in a steady stream of blood when they could be outside soaking up rays of sun, eating an apple or dancing an Irish jig at the beach.
2. The inhouse leak of a decent-quality DVD lead to a rush on purchases of the illegal DVD and so many people had already seen it.
3. Too many horror films released in the last few years have sapped the audience of enthusiasm.
4. Critics reviews as well as the growing storm over the film's controversial content turned potential audience members off.
5. The marketing was not effective and the film wasn't high profile enough to compete.
6. Kids bought tickets to other movies and then snuck into to see Hostel 2.
7. There was too much competition for males at the box office
You can watch Liongate (the film's distributer) churn out excuses 2, 6 and 7 to anybody willing with a straight face. But I suspect it's more a partnership between reasons 1 and 3. Here are rebukes and rebuttles for each of the reasons.
1. Okay, no, this makes sense. Aug-Oct and Jan-March are the only viable times to release a horror movie. Every horror film of the "torture" variety (as defined by Box Office Mojo) to have grossed over $20mil (there's only 8 of them) were released in either October (including the top four), January or March. But would Lionsgate dare question their (admittedly quite successful) marketing team?
2. Perhaps, but I doubt the amount of people who saw the DVD amounted to the excess of $8mil difference between this Hostel's opening to the last. Besides, the illegal copies floating around were unfinished.
3. Well, many of them were not only big giant flops, but a lot of them were also just really really shit. And, somehow, the original Hostel is seen as one of the better ones. So wouldn't a sequel seem like something made of money? How come the sequel to The Hills Have Eyes ($41mil gross on no buzz at all) made more in it's opening weekend than the sequel to Hostel ($48mil gross). Let it be known that The Hills Have Eyes 2 debuted with $9.6mil back in March before a final gross of just over $20mil.
Besides, if Lionsgate admits this, then they admit the reason for Hostel Part 2's failure was... the success of Hostel. No?
4. Clearly this means jack shit. The audience for these movies lap this up like a dog's breakfast. As we've seen before, the mix of controversy plus buzz usually ends up in nothing but fizz.
5. Uh, no.
6. Never mind the fact that pretty much every film they could have purchased tickets to without looking suspicious fell over 50% at the box office and that Ocean's 13, debuting at #1, actually made $37mil, right in line with the other two films of the franchise. And as the success of the original Hostel proved there was more than enough people in January last year to make that one a hit.
7. Well, history has shown that a majority of those who would go to see a movie like this, a horror sequel, will go see it on opening weekend. Ocean's 13 can wait. Surf's Up can wait.
So, I present to you, my hypothesis on why Hostel Part II dropped the big one at the box office.
MY HYPOTHESIS
The only reason as many people went to go see the original Hostel as it is was because there was nothing else at the movies (it knocked Narnia off the #1 spot, which had been there for three weeks) and it was an original movie and seeing that was better than seeing Narnia again. But once they found out it was actually kind of crap, they figured they'd skip the inevitable sequel. Especially when it's Summer and they could be at the beach or playing basketball or "cruising for chicks" or seeing something else at the movies.
I also suspect that #3 has a large part to play. So many lame horror movies all making the same amount of cash (somewhere between $10mil and $20mil), which means the same people are seeing them, but the other people that made the Saw movies and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the original Hostel hits are not. Hostel Part II was just not special enough to warrent people parting with their $10. The original must have turned enough people off (remember, it would have picked up fans from the DVD release too) to cause a sudden downturn, coupled with the desire to not see a sadistic horror show in the summery nights.
Of course, as I said, I doubt Lionsgate will say any of this. I suspect they will blame the leaked DVD (much like MGM did with Soul Plane when that crashed and burned, and Eli Roth is already calling for Dave Poland's head) and that there was just no room for Hostel 2 at the box office, when really there was or that their "internal research" shows a substantial ($8mil worth?) amount of people were buying tickets to other movies and sneaking in (which proves that they are marketing the movie to young adolescents and that actual adults (the ones who could pay to see it) have rejected it (positive!) I never expected The Hills Have Eyes 2 to make more than Hostel Part II though. Whod've thunk that?
Now, the next big test comes with Saw IV. Will it suffer a similar fate as Hostel 2, will it follow the trends of the Friday the 13th movies (gradually less and less) or will this franchise continue grow and grow? I hope it's the first possibility, but I have a feeling it won't be.
1. It's Summer and nobody wants to sit through a woman bathing in a steady stream of blood when they could be outside soaking up rays of sun, eating an apple or dancing an Irish jig at the beach.
2. The inhouse leak of a decent-quality DVD lead to a rush on purchases of the illegal DVD and so many people had already seen it.
3. Too many horror films released in the last few years have sapped the audience of enthusiasm.
4. Critics reviews as well as the growing storm over the film's controversial content turned potential audience members off.
5. The marketing was not effective and the film wasn't high profile enough to compete.
6. Kids bought tickets to other movies and then snuck into to see Hostel 2.
7. There was too much competition for males at the box office
You can watch Liongate (the film's distributer) churn out excuses 2, 6 and 7 to anybody willing with a straight face. But I suspect it's more a partnership between reasons 1 and 3. Here are rebukes and rebuttles for each of the reasons.
1. Okay, no, this makes sense. Aug-Oct and Jan-March are the only viable times to release a horror movie. Every horror film of the "torture" variety (as defined by Box Office Mojo) to have grossed over $20mil (there's only 8 of them) were released in either October (including the top four), January or March. But would Lionsgate dare question their (admittedly quite successful) marketing team?
2. Perhaps, but I doubt the amount of people who saw the DVD amounted to the excess of $8mil difference between this Hostel's opening to the last. Besides, the illegal copies floating around were unfinished.
3. Well, many of them were not only big giant flops, but a lot of them were also just really really shit. And, somehow, the original Hostel is seen as one of the better ones. So wouldn't a sequel seem like something made of money? How come the sequel to The Hills Have Eyes ($41mil gross on no buzz at all) made more in it's opening weekend than the sequel to Hostel ($48mil gross). Let it be known that The Hills Have Eyes 2 debuted with $9.6mil back in March before a final gross of just over $20mil.
Besides, if Lionsgate admits this, then they admit the reason for Hostel Part 2's failure was... the success of Hostel. No?
4. Clearly this means jack shit. The audience for these movies lap this up like a dog's breakfast. As we've seen before, the mix of controversy plus buzz usually ends up in nothing but fizz.
5. Uh, no.
6. Never mind the fact that pretty much every film they could have purchased tickets to without looking suspicious fell over 50% at the box office and that Ocean's 13, debuting at #1, actually made $37mil, right in line with the other two films of the franchise. And as the success of the original Hostel proved there was more than enough people in January last year to make that one a hit.
7. Well, history has shown that a majority of those who would go to see a movie like this, a horror sequel, will go see it on opening weekend. Ocean's 13 can wait. Surf's Up can wait.
So, I present to you, my hypothesis on why Hostel Part II dropped the big one at the box office.
The only reason as many people went to go see the original Hostel as it is was because there was nothing else at the movies (it knocked Narnia off the #1 spot, which had been there for three weeks) and it was an original movie and seeing that was better than seeing Narnia again. But once they found out it was actually kind of crap, they figured they'd skip the inevitable sequel. Especially when it's Summer and they could be at the beach or playing basketball or "cruising for chicks" or seeing something else at the movies.
I also suspect that #3 has a large part to play. So many lame horror movies all making the same amount of cash (somewhere between $10mil and $20mil), which means the same people are seeing them, but the other people that made the Saw movies and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the original Hostel hits are not. Hostel Part II was just not special enough to warrent people parting with their $10. The original must have turned enough people off (remember, it would have picked up fans from the DVD release too) to cause a sudden downturn, coupled with the desire to not see a sadistic horror show in the summery nights.
Of course, as I said, I doubt Lionsgate will say any of this. I suspect they will blame the leaked DVD (much like MGM did with Soul Plane when that crashed and burned, and Eli Roth is already calling for Dave Poland's head) and that there was just no room for Hostel 2 at the box office, when really there was or that their "internal research" shows a substantial ($8mil worth?) amount of people were buying tickets to other movies and sneaking in (which proves that they are marketing the movie to young adolescents and that actual adults (the ones who could pay to see it) have rejected it (positive!) I never expected The Hills Have Eyes 2 to make more than Hostel Part II though. Whod've thunk that?
Now, the next big test comes with Saw IV. Will it suffer a similar fate as Hostel 2, will it follow the trends of the Friday the 13th movies (gradually less and less) or will this franchise continue grow and grow? I hope it's the first possibility, but I have a feeling it won't be.
March 19, 2007
Are there any fish left in the sea (and by fish I mean movies left to remake)??
Seriously? A remake of freakin' Pirahna? Granted, I haven't seen the original (I have seen the dreadful James Cameron-directed sequel mind you), but still. Who wants to see a remake of a movie nobody even cared about back then? And about fish, no less! Ugh. And it makes me sorta sad that it's Alexandre Aja who is going to be sitting in the director's chair. Aja did an impressive job with the first half of his French debut Haute Tension (that ending will forever be a blight on the world of cinema) and I really quite enjoyed (well, no, not "enjoyed") his second feature, another remake, The Hills Have Eyes. 
But, really. This is never going to end. Aja says he wants to "pay homage" (is "homage" not the most overused word nowadays when it comes to remakes?) to the movies he grew up with. That's all well and good, but at least people like Eli Roth (a man whose movies I don't care for at all) are paying "homage" to those films in the form of original movies, not remakes of April Fool's Day or Them! or whatever else they're going to think of remaking next. Ugh.I still think the idea of any movie involving pirahnas is utterly absurd, but why do we need a remake of one? Really. Naturally, it's being produced by the Weinstein's so if they give the Pirahna remake the same level of respect as that they have given that other animal-in-the-water horror flick of theirs, Rogue, we'll probably never even get to see it. So, ya know, that's a bonus!
January 9, 2007
Oh, That was unexpected
The new teaser trailer for The Hills Have Eyes 2. I make no concessions for being a fan of the remake, but the idea of a sequel just seemed ridiculous (especially considering how bad the sequels to Wes Craven's original apparently were), but dayumn! Creeeeepy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
